Case Background
The case arose from a development scheme in Ward No. 34 of Patna Municipal Corporation (PMC). The petitioner was an elected Ward Councillor of this ward and had been elected three times.
In the 22nd General Meeting of the Board of Councillors of PMC held on 05.06.2021, it was proposed that each Ward Councillor could select development scheme or schemes up to Rs. 1 crore on a priority basis for their ward. This was meant to promote local development works.
The Board of Councillors approved this proposal through Proposal No. 215. Acting on this decision, the Municipal Commissioner, PMC, issued an order bearing Letter No. 10740 dated 18.07.2021 implementing the one-crore-per-ward scheme.
As Ward Councillor of Ward No. 34, the petitioner recommended 13 separate development schemes, together totalling an estimated cost of Rs. 99,63,600. One of these, “Construction of Chamber Leakage (Drain) near MIG-129 and both sides of House No. U-469”, carried an estimated cost of Rs. 6,69,100.
The Chief Town Engineer approved these schemes, and a Chartered Accountant also gave a favourable report after verifying that the total cost remained within the one crore limit. The Municipal Commissioner then granted administrative approval for all 13 schemes on 05.11.2021.
To give effect to this, the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, PMC, issued an administrative approval order vide Letter No. 15193 dated 16.11.2021. Thereafter, an e-Notice Inviting Tender was published on 23.11.2021, allowing contractors to participate in the bid process up to 5:00 p.m. on 06.01.2022.
After completion of the tender process, a work order for the drain scheme was issued by the Executive Engineer, Kankarbagh Division, PMC, in favour of a contractor, Brijesh Kumar Rai. An agreement for execution of the work was executed.
At this stage, a resident, Sushil Kumar, filed a complaint before PMC. He alleged that an old sewerage line already passed through Plot/House No. U-469, that it was fully functional, and therefore there was no need to construct a new drain alongside that plot. He also claimed the plot was public land meant for public use.
On 20.04.2022, acting on this complaint, the Municipal Commissioner directed a team of engineers to inspect the site and submit a report. On the same date, a five-member team led by the Chief Town Engineer conducted a physical inspection of the site in the presence of the complainant and submitted its report.
Based on this report, the Chief Municipal Commissioner passed an internal order on 11.06.2022, and the Deputy Municipal Commissioner issued an order dated 27.06.2022 (Annexure-1E), cancelling the administrative approval of the drain scheme near MIG-129 and both sides of House/Plot No. U-469. This cancellation order was challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The petitioner’s main grievance was that the drain scheme, which formed part of the one-crore development package for Ward No. 34, was cancelled arbitrarily and illegally.
He argued that the Board of Councillors and the Mayor had already approved the schemes recommended by him. After that, tenders had been floated and work orders issued. The Chief Municipal Commissioner, according to him, was bound under Section 27-B(6) of the Section 27-B(6) to carry out the Board’s resolution and could not override or cancel it on his own.
He further submitted that the engineering inspection report dated 20.04.2022 (Annexure-1D), which formed the basis of the cancellation, did not actually recommend scrapping the scheme. Instead, the team stated that if Plot No. U-469 belonged to a private individual, the sewer line should be shifted, and if it was public land, there would be no need to shift it.
The report also recorded that, as per the Executive Engineer, Patna Division-1 of Bihar State Housing Board, Plot No. U-469 had been allotted to one Smt. Chanda Devi, and after her death it was mutated in favour of her son, Kishore Kumar Banka. It further stated that since 24.09.2019 the property was freehold in his name.
On this basis, the petitioner contended there was no dispute over the ownership of Plot No. U-469, and the cancellation rested on a misreading of the report. He also relied on Section 27-B(6) of the Bihar Municipal Act, which obliges the Chief Municipal Commissioner to implement resolutions of the Board of Councillors and the Empowered Standing Committee, unless such resolutions are set aside or suspended under the Act.
On behalf of PMC, learned counsel submitted that the cancellation order was lawful and within the powers of the Chief Municipal Commissioner. He relied on Section 75(g) of the Bihar Municipal Act and a State Government Notification dated 08.02.2016 (No. 2B/Muo mo no vo yo-08-01/2013.871/UD&HD). Under this, the Chief Municipal Commissioner had authority to accord administrative sanction to schemes up to Rs. 60 lakh in a Municipal Corporation, and administrative sanction for schemes above that limit had to be granted by the Empowered Standing Committee.
Since the drain scheme cost only Rs. 6,69,100, PMC argued that the Chief Municipal Commissioner himself had granted administrative sanction and, therefore, also had power to cancel it.
The Patna High Court first examined who had actually granted administrative sanction. It called for the original records from PMC through order dated 22.09.2022.
On scrutinising the records, the Court found that while the 13 schemes recommended by the petitioner did have approval of the Mayor and the Board of Councillors, the administrative sanction for them was in fact granted by the Municipal Commissioner, PMC, in line with the 08.02.2016 Notification. Thus the Corporation’s stand on competence to grant sanction was accepted.
However, the Court made it clear that this was not the end of the matter. It framed two key questions:
First, could the Chief Municipal Commissioner, despite his role as administrative sanctioning authority, override the resolution of the Board of Councillors, in light of Section 27-B(6) of the Bihar Municipal Act?
Second, was the cancellation order based on sound reasoning?
On the first question, the Court noted that the proposal giving each Ward Councillor power to select schemes up to Rs. 1 crore had been duly approved by the Board of Councillors. The petitioner’s 13 schemes, chosen under this policy, had therefore received the Board’s backing, and the Chief Municipal Commissioner’s role was to grant administrative sanction.
Section 27-B(6) states that the Chief Municipal Commissioner shall carry into effect every resolution of the Empowered Standing Committee or the Board of Councillors which conforms to law, unless the resolution is set aside or suspended by an appropriate authority under the Act.
In this light, the Court held that upon receiving a complaint against a scheme that had Board approval, the Chief Municipal Commissioner should not have unilaterally cancelled it. Instead, he ought to have referred the matter back to the Board of Councillors or the Empowered Standing Committee for a decision on the complaint. Cancelling the scheme himself amounted to overriding the Board’s resolution, contrary to Section 27-B(6).
On the second question, the Court closely examined the engineering inspection report dated 20.04.2022 (Annexure-1D). The team of engineers had reported that:
There was indeed an old sewerage line passing through Plot/House No. U-469, and it was in working condition, carrying wastewater from the area.
The team clearly distinguished two situations—if the plot was for public purpose, there would be no need to shift the sewer line; but if the land belonged to a private individual, it would be appropriate to shift the sewer line.
They recorded that the area was prone to waterlogging, the Ward Councillor regarded the scheme as extremely important, it had received approval up to headquarter level, and local residents had requested construction of the drainage.
The report further recorded that the complainant, Sushil Kumar, claimed that the Housing Board had cancelled allotment of Plot No. U-469. However, when asked for evidence, he could not produce any document.
On the contrary, as per the Executive Engineer of the Housing Board, the plot had been allotted to Smt. Chanda Devi on 26.05.1980, and after her death it was mutated to her son, Kishore Kumar Banka, vide Letter No. 4522 dated 20.09.2018. Since 24.09.2019, the property was recorded as his freehold property. The Housing Board also confirmed that the plot was not earmarked as a park.
The Committee therefore concluded that Plot/House No. U-469 was a private property and not land reserved for public purpose.
Despite this clear conclusion, the Chief Municipal Commissioner proceeded to cancel the scheme, citing that Plot No. U-469 “appears to be disputed”. The cancellation letter dated 27.06.2022 accordingly modified the earlier administrative approval order and stopped the drain scheme.
The Court found this reasoning unsustainable. It noted that the complaint was premised on the assertion that Plot No. U-469 was public land and that the existing sewer was adequate. But the inspection report and the Housing Board records showed that the plot was privately owned and not reserved for public use.
To further confirm this, the petitioner had relied on a previous judgment of the Patna High Court in Smt. Chanda Devi vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2000 Patna 16. In that case, the Court had set aside the Bihar State Housing Board’s order cancelling the allotment of Plot No. U-469 in favour of Smt. Chanda Devi, holding the cancellation unsustainable. While leaving it open to the Board to take further legal steps under the Housing Board Act, the Court’s decision recognised the allotment and lease in her favour.
Taking the inspection report, Housing Board documents, and the earlier judgment together, the Bench concluded that Plot/House No. U-469 was a private property of the allottee and, later, of her son as freehold owner.
Therefore, the ground that the plot “appears to be disputed” could not be justified on facts. The Board of Councillors had approved the scheme for public benefit in an area prone to waterlogging. The engineering team had not recommended cancelling the work. In these circumstances, the Chief Municipal Commissioner’s unilateral cancellation was both procedurally and substantively flawed.
Accordingly, the Patna High Court set aside the impugned order dated 27.06.2022 issued by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, PMC, as well as the internal order dated 11.06.2022 passed by the Chief Municipal Commissioner cancelling the “Construction of Chamber Leakage (Drain) near MIG-129 and both sides of Plot/House No. U-469” scheme.
The writ petition was allowed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for residents and councillors in urban areas where development works are often delayed or cancelled without clear reasons.
The Patna High Court clarified that once the Board of Councillors has approved a development scheme in accordance with law, the Chief Municipal Commissioner cannot simply cancel it on his own. He must respect the elected body’s decision and, if a complaint arises, place the matter back before the Board or the Empowered Standing Committee.
The judgment also shows that decisions affecting public works must be based on proper evidence. Here, the complaint claimed the land was public and the sewer was sufficient, but official records and inspection reports showed the land was private and the area suffered from waterlogging.
For local citizens, it reinforces that objections to public works must be supported by documents, and that false or unsupported complaints should not derail needed infrastructure. For councillors, it confirms that courts will protect validly approved ward development schemes from arbitrary interference by officials.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Can the Chief Municipal Commissioner unilaterally cancel a ward development scheme approved by the Board of Councillors, solely because he granted the administrative sanction?
Answer: No. Under Section 27-B(6) of the Bihar Municipal Act, he is required to carry into effect resolutions of the Board of Councillors that are in accordance with law. Any complaint should be referred to the Board or Empowered Standing Committee, not dealt with by unilateral cancellation.
Issue: Was the cancellation of the drain construction scheme near MIG-129 and both sides of Plot/House No. U-469 based on sound reasoning and evidence?
Answer: No. The engineering inspection and Housing Board documents showed Plot No. U-469 was private property and not public land, and the area was prone to waterlogging. The ground that the plot appeared “disputed” and that the existing sewer was sufficient was unsupported, making the cancellation unsustainable.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Smt. Chanda Devi vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2000 Patna 16 – cited to show that cancellation of allotment of Plot No. U-469 in favour of Smt. Chanda Devi had earlier been set aside by the Patna High Court.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10133 of 2022
Case Title: Kumar Sanjeet v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2022 (4) PLJR 379
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shailendra Singh
Date of Judgment: 20-10-2022
Advocates:
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Gajendra Pratap Singh, Advocate
- For the Respondents–Patna Municipal Corporation: Mr. Prasoon Sinha, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction challenging municipal order cancelling administrative approval of a ward development (drain construction) scheme.
Link to Judgment: Patna High Court Judgment in CWJC No. 10133 of 2022
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
